Slashdot Mirror

"A public poll carried out a week after the Columbia disaster finds widespread backing in America for the NASA program. Support for NASA shuttle flight remains firm, the poll indicates, with three in four citizens wanting the space agency's funding level to be maintained or increased.

Support for NASA funding was found to be somewhat higher than what was measured 3 years ago. A slim majority of Americans favor a continued focus on human rather than robotic missions.

The poll also shows that about three in ten Americans would themselves like to take a space shuttle flight sometime in the future, slightly fewer than wanted to be a shuttle passenger 12 years ago.

The Gallup Organization of Princeton, New Jersey carried out the poll in concert with CNN and USA Today, with the results released February 17. "

For too much information about the topic of zero gravity sex, click here

They don't use oil based fuel.

Rocket fuel is usually liquid oxygen in one tank, and liquid hydrogen. There are several other fuels used, one of which is derived from kerosene and is not used often anymore.

Spaceshipone uses "hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), a common ingredient in tire rubber" as the fuel, and nitrous oxide (laughing gas) as the oxidizing agent.

Because they are common and not explosive in and of themselves, they are much easier to transport and use.

Oh, and they don't use much oil, AFAIK, either.

But, YMMV because IANARS.

Here's a crater on the Moon with such a peak. I guess it really gets around.

They're called rebound peaks and they are a common feature of impact craters, and perfectly natural.

#3 teflon, plastics

#1 the computer you're using now -- space exploration pushed the microelectoronics revolution

Maybe there is a bit of having NASA over a barrel in it.

But its also a fact that the Russian's have been completely carrying the ISS since Columbia mostly at their own expense and while NASA still wants to dictate how ISS though it hasn't shouldered any of the burden for nearly 2 years and probably 3 before the shuttle resumes any useful role. For example they tried to stop Russia from taking tourists to the ISS to raise cash and the Russian's gave them the finger.

Its also more than a little sickening to hear NASA and its minions talk about how they are "on schedule" to return to flight next year. Well they aren't even remotely "on schedule". After the accident report they said they were going to return to flight in March 11, 2004. NASA return to flight window doesn't even open until May of 2005 now and chances are slim they will stay on that schedule based on track record. I don't think this flight actually does anything other than fly to the ISS, inspect it for booboos and fly back again. Hopefully they will carry a few loaves of bread and bottles of water to the crew.

Just look at those sources you are suggesting...

Hit #1: 25 April 2002
Hit #2: January 25, 2000
Hit #3: September 27, 2002
Hit #4: November 24, 2003

I'm not even going to go further... Last time I checked, it was Deceber 2004...

Why was this not news when it was first known?

Because when faced with the possibility of a disaster so horrible to contemplate, people have a hard time believing, or will willfully disbelieve, that it can ever happen to them.

No, it's just that when faced with the possibility of a disaster about as probable as having a meteor hit them, most people decide not to worry about it. From TFA: "But . . . mega-tsunami . . .are extremely rare - the last one happened 4,000 years ago on the island of Réunion." People get struck by lightning fairly frequently. People have been struck by meteors. Should we all carry around portable lightning rods, or get meteor insurance?

"Ah, but now there's been an Indian Ocean tsunami! That proves it could happen, and that we should have built a warning system years ago!" "Ah, but there's evidence in the Bahamas that this has happened before!" If you throw an honest die, you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a 6. But if you roll the die, observe a 6, and state, "This die rolls a 6 100% of the time," you haven't changed the odds for the next roll at all.

I have car insurance, because a car accident is not that improbable. But once I had two car crashes in a single night. Neither one was my fault, neither one involved alcohol, neither one was a mechanical failure; I simply encountered two idiots unusually close together--a "one-in-a-million" chance, I could say. I never expect it to happen to me again, even though it is just as likely to happen the next time I go out driving as it was that night. An improbable event is not made less improbable by having actually happened before.

I think it was summer 1979 that some loon pseudoscientist predicted an earthquake that would sink Louisiana, east Texas, and central Arkansas, doubling the size of the Gulf of Mexico. I was in college in the target zone at the time, and there was much discussion of the prediction. When the day arrived when we were supposed to see a hundred-foot wall of water sweeping over us, nobody headed for Missouri, although several people carried umbrellas.

The effects of such a disaster, should it occur, are not "far beyond our comprehension" at all; hell, in the last few years the movie industry has given us several startlingly graphic versions of mass disaster. Stunned horror is not the same as incomprehension; I was stunned on 9/11, but I comprehended perfectly--instantly--what was happening. But what I also comprehended--much faster than the news media did then or has since--is that no matter how often somebody proposed such an event (e.g. Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor, 1994), until it actually happened it remained fantastically improbable. And it is still fantastically improbable that it will happen again any time soon.

Back in the mid-80's a friend expressed her outrage to me that airbags were not yet required in all vehicles. "Even if you only save one life," she said, "it's worth all the millions it would cost!" (At this point, disregard cases where children and small adults have been killed by an airbag--that's a failure of design, not of concept.) My argument to her was that, at the time, an airbag added about a thousand dollars to the cost of a car. Mandatory airbags would have pushed some people across the border between being able to afford a new car and continuing to drive their old unsafe clunker, reducing the overall safety of the driving population. She didn't like that argument a bit. If we'd kept going, she'd have doubtless suggested a government subsidy for airbags, pushing taxes higher.

Does anybody complain that there aren't tornado sirens in Manhattan? Or that Texas doesn't have as tight a net of seismographs as southern California or St. Helens? You put the money where the probabilities are. Whether you're a scientist or a politician, yo

Also, see here for more on rover tech.

Risks of dying in car: 1 in 100
Risks of dying in plane:1 in 20,000
Risks of dying from asteroid 1 in 20,000 to 100,000

Source [space.com]

May I just get somebody to help me pay off my student loans and make sure that there is enough social security to cover my health when I get old?

AC bw

Frankly, I'm surprised at this... isn't the 2000 SG 344 also due to hit Earth in 2030?

And then there's 1950DA which is a civilization killer

I'm watching this thing as closely as I can, but I don't think we're as doomed as we look.

Using an impact calculator that people have quoted in a number of earlier posts, 2004 MN4 (being only .4km wide) will only produce a crater about 4km wide (if it hits land). This is quite small, in fact.

The Chicxulub crater, left by the rock that killed the dinosaurs, is at least 150km in diameter, theoretically left by a rock 10km in diameter.

Essentially, unless you're under it or near the tidal wave, I don't think you have much to worry about from 2004 MN4. But now is a better time than ever to realize we need to work on our planetary defences.

How to move it is an interesting question. Most schemes for moving an asteroid focus on vaporizing some of the asteroid to provide thrust. One plan has sunlight focused on the rock. Another suggests using radioactive waste from terrestrial nuclear power plants to heat the rock (note - no radioactives released, at least not if everything goes according to plan). One suggestion was to use a tether to generate electricity to ionize asteroidal material.

I'd like to think that humanity would get it's act together and adjust the asteroid's orbit should it be necessary.

Then again, I'm having an unusually good day today.

I was just looking at that article, and was playing around with the numbers too...

I was wondering more about the image presented in the article here that showed the objects orbit and Earth's. It seems to me that this thing will pass very close by the orbit of Venus, which makes me wonder - do astronomer's also include the possible pull of Venus' gravity on this astroid as they do the calculations of the astroid's orbit? I assume so, but I was wondering how exactly do that factor that in?

• Impact Energy: 1.23 x 10^19 Joules
• Crater Formed in Seafloor: 2.46 km diameter
• Earthquake: 6.0 on Richter Scale
• Radiant Flux at 100 km: 7.68 times that of sun

Risks of dying in car: 1 in 100
Risks of dying in plane:1 in 20,000
Risks of dying from asteroid 1 in 20,000 to 100,000

Source [space.com]

May I just get somebody to help me pay off my student loans and make sure that there is enough social security to cover my health when I get old?

AC ohy

We learn a lot more from a single one of these probes than we do from having a couple of starving astronauts endlessly orbiting the earth in a big tin can full of their own garbage.

Risks of dying in car: 1 in 100
Risks of dying in plane:1 in 20,000
Risks of dying from asteroid 1 in 20,000 to 100,000

Source [space.com]

May I just get somebody to help me pay off my student loans and make sure that there is enough social security to cover my health when I get old?

AC to

The article states:
And the researchers suspect the shape of the crater may encourage the development of dust devils or other wind patterns that could help scrub the panels.

The tornado like winds that can be caused by dust devils is something that was discussed by NASA back in April and surely seems like the real answer:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dust_devils_ 040420.html

I'm not sure why they think its such a mystery now ...

To deorbit something, it takes the burning off of that object's potential energy.

I'm well aware of what de-orbiting involves. Fortunatly, you don't have to use thrust to get rid of all of it's kinetic energy, you just have to reduce it's perigee enough to bring atmospheric drag into play.

A few months ago, they actually DID more or less just throw it out the window. The throw was roughly calculated to pick up just enough drag to eventually de-orbit the trash.

I'll bet disposable containers with rocket engines won't get expensive anywhere NEAR as fast as heat shields and re-entry capable vehicles for TRASH will. I'm thinking solid fuel, tether and net. It doesn't have to navigate accurately, it just has to be close enough. Given that it actually was possible to actually throw some of the trash hard enough to de-orbit it, the solid rocket wouldn't need much total impulse. Perhaps they should look at what the high performance rocketry hobbiests are using?

At $300 million extra per launch for shuttle versus a throwaway booster, there's plenty of money available for a trash de-orbiting system given that it has no need to survive reentry and that once it thrusts to begin reentry, it can just shut down and let physics do the work.

BTW, something being the function of the "payload (vehicle)" rather than the booster is quite applicable - that's why we haven't used the shuttle for everything. The Atlas and Delta series are there for a reason, you know. We're not talking about replacing them - we're talking about replacing the shuttle.

That's what I'm saying! The idea is to design a vehicle boosted by a D-IV to provide the needed functionality. By giving up on reusing the engines, the reusability problem is reduced. If they switch from RCC panels and tiles to a re-appliable ablative epoxy heatshield as well, they eliminate the problem that grounded the shuttle.

At that point, the D-IV plus the new vehicle will replace 100% of the shuttle's functionality.

The real numbers are probably less mysterious.

It was back in maybe 1965/66? Dark night with no moon, playing an away game of jv football in Albemarle? NC.

That sucker arced across 20% of the sky with a really orange red tail and exploded. Almost looked like dawn was coming, I waited for sound, started counting off seconds to range it's distance, but no sound ever came.

Just for a moment I thought it was the Russians, but that's another story.

Something I will never forget.

And some asteroids come even closer, entering the atmosphere. Most never reach the ground because they break apart under the stress of entry. One study of data collected by U.S. military satellites logged 300 in-air asteroid explosions.

Is it just me, or does it seem like we have one of these each month.

Are they becoming more frequent, or is it that we can monitor them more effectively now.

Is it just me, or does it seem like we have one of these each month.

Are they becoming more frequent, or is it that we can monitor them more effectively now.

Is it just me, or does it seem like we have one of these each month.

Are they becoming more frequent, or is it that we can monitor them more effectively now.

Is it just me, or does it seem like we have one of these each month.

Are they becoming more frequent, or is it that we can monitor them more effectively now.

A little before SS1 did it's two X-prize flights, a few quiet news articles announced that Scaled Composites was being contracted to supply the dropship for glide tests for the X37 program. Speculation is that the White Knight carrier plane is to be used for this, so although SS1 might not get flown again, White Knight probably will, and there will be some extra cash coming in from the project.

Figures from space.com, $140 million and 50,000 lbs, allow one to estimate the cost/lb to LEO of the Delta IV at $2800/lb when the payload bay is packed to the gills.

IF thats true, then why did US companies purchase a farily substantial quantity of the RD-180 engines for US rockets? The Russian rocket engine tech is actually on par, and exceeds in some cases, US and ESA tech. Oh, and the reason noone can build a Saturn5 is that the plans nolonger exist. There have been several rockets designed and flown that equal or outperform the S5, the Energia for example.

Source 1
Source 2

Or more likely, dust devils, given how thin mars' atmostphere is:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000317.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-dust-04b.html
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2004/08 /24.php
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ dust_edgett_010702-1.html

(google has tons more of this stuff)

A dust devil is a basically a minature tornado. Not to be underestimated, the martian variety can make tracks visible from space, as they come in all sizes. It stands well within the realm of possibility that a dust devil (of the smaller variety) just happened to tag the rover and suck the dust off of it.

Its only by scientific prudence that the phenomenon is called a "mystery" at all. We have no real way of proving if this is how it happened, let alone if any other theory is more or less valid. There's simply no data other than the solar cell output before and after (and possibly some photos of the solar array itself). But given the lack of evidence for any other "dust moving phenomenon" on mars, we're left with what we already know about mars: almost no wind and the occasional dust devil.

Thanks to Werner Von Braun

...capable of lifting 23 tonnes...

The added engines allow the rocket to launch 50,800 pounds (23.040 kilograms) of payload into low Earth orbit and 28,950 pounds (13,130 kilograms) to geosynchronous orbits...

The Delta IV family blends new and mature technology to launch virtually any size medium or heavy payload into space

The first half of your post was pretty good, but the fact of the matter is that the Republican party does not deny global warming exists. Republicans in general simply disagree that humanity is the leading cause of global warming; instead, they point to changes in solar output and other types of non-human environmental changes. Where you're getting confused is that the environmental crowd has turned the phrase "global warming" into a euphamism for "humans are the sole entity responsible for screwing up the planet."

The fact that 5,200 years ago we were having an extremely similar climate change, when humans were unable to play any significant role in atmospheric change, certainly contradicts the claim that humanity is the sole cause of radical climate change on Earth. Not to mention the fact that Mars is undergoing global warming at the same time Earth, and Mars has a notable lack of polluters.

Why disable when you can destroy? http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board =businesstech&main=74111&type=post

The article does say that they will only use it if their ennemies are using the system, but the difference between "using" and "about to use" is a very, very thin line...

Imagine some terrorist group is launching a dozen of home-made of cruise missile towards Washington. Bush has every reason to shut down the GPS. It makes sense to ask EU for a favour to shut down Galileo temporarily.

The problem is the Bush Administration is just so arrogant. The Pentagon has plan to do whatever, regardless of what they say they would or wouldn't do. I don't have a problem with this. But, that does not mean it is rational to threat the supposely allied EU countries for an attack of Galileo... Let's turn the table around. Imagine what would be Bush's reaction if the French Government say that kind of crap first....

I don't even need to mention other sovereignty countries... It is clear why Bush is hated by so many people around the world.

Disregarding the odds for a particularly severe thunderstorm actually reaching the altitude of the blimp (it happens), I'm curious about what happens when the blimp gets in the line of fire of one of these, or some of the other stuff that occasionally occurs way up yonder.

10x zoom w/ IS

First of all, 10x zoom is a complete joke. I hope you didn't base your decision of that. It's meant for the uneducated consumer, who sees the 10x and thinks it's better than the 3x optical.

I know I am not the kind of guy who is interested in changing lenses all the time.

You don't have to if you get a zoom lens. The Nikon D70 outfit has a 18-70 mm lens (factor of 1.6 multiplication to convert to 35 mm cameras). You really don't need to lug around all those lenses, unless you're doing extreme telephoto (which I highly doubt).

I used the Nikon Coolpix 5200 for awhile, but I was unhappy with it's inability to focus quickly and accurately. Additionally, the consistency between shots was poor. I got the D70 outfit (already had Nikon lenses) and the results amazed me. All CCDs were not created equal. You need a larger CCD more than megapixels. Hell, the Spirit's digital cameras are only 1 megapixel in resolution. (The CCD is nearly a half an inch sqaure.) http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /pancam_techwed_040114.html

I can agree with you if you don't want to spend more than $1000. However, keep this in mind: The lense you buy is basically a 10+ year purchase. The body is not. So, in 3 years, when dslrs are markedly better, you can still use that lens. You won't be throwing away that lens. With a point and shoot, you throw out all of the camera...and there goes that $800 purchase.

Oh, and I got a decent tripod from Target for $30. Why do you need high quality support equipment if the equipment you use doesn't need it?

"NASA - get a mission people care about that can be realistically funded, or sign over the next twenty years to Burt Rhutan and company."

That's easier said than done. Why should science be subject to the whims of the masses? The general public has never been able to determine which scientific research is important. And of course, realistic funding is completely subjective, and quite complex.

Scaled Composites? They're air guys for the most part, not space. And they might not even have the right stuff. As one Scaled employee told me, "The America's Space Prize seems to be too small award for too large a project." Asking Scaled to handle a large scale vehicle development project is like asking your resident teenage hacker to handle the networking infrastructure for a 500 node corporate computer network. The kid might be able to build a great low-cost PC quickly, but throw him a large project and he'll just buckle under the stress and seriously compromise the project due to a lack of experience and cockiness. Rutan alone being made NASA Administrator would be quite different though from signing "over the next twenty years to Burt Rhutan [sic] and company".

And be advised, you shouldn't get too enamored of celebrity engineers. The engineers you never hear about on CNN/Slashdot (both have about the same aerospace news quality) are probably a more impressive bunch than you think.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/i mg_display.php?pic=041210_geminids_peaks_02.gif

Why bother with solar panels and propellers? A buoyancy glider powered from temperature gradients is far more efficient. And you can use it where the sun don't shine, even off-planet.

This could be the final straw for the ISS boondoggle. You can't do astronomy from the station that's even a tenth of the precision of Hubble. Why? All the vibrations from all the environmental gear. In fact, you can't do decent science experiments of any type. Why? Two people can't take time from just holding the place together to do the experiments, and we lack the budget (and now - the food!) to have a big enough crew to make the place something other than a multi-billion-dollar Astronaut Habitrail. Right now, it's no better than Mir was in its final days: astronauts spend all their time trying not to die. '"At present, the primary goal of the ISS is unclear," the NRC study observes.' I think it's dangerously close to changing from an investment to a sunk cost.

I agree with you and would like to add a little extra. Current data collecting techniques definitely seem to point out that the average temperatures on Earth have not gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.

It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).

The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).

This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.

It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...

I don't think it is possible to argue that the average temperatures on Earth have gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.

It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).

The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).

This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.

It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...

That's funny, because I look at this as news that the mass media is pretending that it is proven science... Read the details, 100% of the articles did not mention that global warming could be produced from valid geological / astrophysical events... temporary increase in the sun's energy output, recent random volcanic activity, you know, the kind of alternative sources that can easily be found in a google search...

I am not saying that human industrial pollution is not a contributor towards global warming, I just find it interesting that so many people think that it is the only contributor...

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
By SPACE.com
posted: 03:00 pm ET
08 December 2003

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

full story at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

There are indeed a few ideas - solar sails, magnetic sails, laser propulsion. These all basically require something external to push on the spacecraft (eg photons, a magnetic field) rather than ejecting mass. But rockets have more flexibility in general - eg you couldn't use a laser system for a return voyage, unless there was a big laser in place at the other end to send you back. But certainly it seems likely that these methods will have niche uses, especially in the inner solar system.

I for one would like to see a sample return mission soon from mars, but would like to see the samples returned to the ISS first for quarantine and study. This gives the ISS a true scientific mission, and allays many general population worries about a super-bug scenario. I for one would take the risk of a direct return mission, but in light of the recent failed Genesis return mission, I can see a great deal of public agitation in the making. This article at Space.com seems to indicate NASA is still planning on direct return. I realize that this keeps costs down, but for NASA survival and funding I would think public support should be more paramount. Its easier to get 10 billion approved for something the public supports as opposed to a billion for something the public is worried about.

All of this said, I would like to address the Andromeda scenario. I have never read the book, though I have read several of Michael Crichton's other books. I do own the DVD and have seen the film several times. I only have 2 quibbles with the movie version (and probably the book version as well). Why do all the organisms in Andromeda Strain evolve in lock step? Even when separated by hundreds of miles and in completely different environments? Most organisms radiate when evolving. Andromeda's microbes all evolve into a benign form that is then killed before it can evolve again.

The other nit-pick, why does clotted blood instantly turn to powder? I would think it would turn to a gooey, slimy, red jell like normal clotted blood. A scab is only solid and dry because it is exposed to the desiccating effects of air. Also once clotting starts, why does it race through the body? If the circulation stops due to clotting in one area, how does what is inducing clotting continue to travel through the whole body to induce clotting everywhere?

Minor nit-picks aside, I loved the movie, and you sometimes need to overlook a few details in order to motivate and move the plot along.

On to my last, and maybe most important, Andromeda Strain inspired point, and on this subject I am going to reverse myself a bit. What if life in the Universe is common, but only the microbe variety? What if it is rare and unlikely that multi-cellular life can arise because super strain type bugs like Andromeda kill them. The Andromeda strain envisioned by Michael Crichton was completely waste free, assimilating all Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen (albeit in a very specific ratio). Andromeda was more like a crystal than an organic, and one could imagine an Ice 9 scenario arising with such an organism. This would explain the Fermi Paradox, though not in a manner I'm hoping for. On the other hand, if we ever do detect signals from other Intelligences in the Universe, and they are relatively close by, then this would suggest such super bugs are unlikely.

Given the proximity of Mars, should such a super bug live there, we probably would have been exposed by meteorites from Mars already, so again I'm not so worried about our immediate neighborhood. And with a 4 billion-year history of life on Earth, I won't lie awake worrying such a bug will arrive tomorrow.

Well, I'm not an expert or anything, but I did find this pop science explanation of the current state of galaxy formation theory over on space.com the other day.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_hi story_030128-1.html

I trust this is what you were looking for?